Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Shirk et al

Filing 73

OPINION AND ORDER denying 72 MOTION to Enforce Settlement. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 10/21/2014. (rmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY J. SHIRK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:10-CV-018 JD

OPINION AND ORDER
This was an insurance dispute between Auto-Owners Insurance Company and its
insureds, Nancy J. Shirk and Donald M. Shirk. This matter proceeded past the summary
judgment stage before the parties reached a settlement through mediation. On September 27,
2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which terminated this action. [DE 71]. Just over a year
then passed without any further activity, until Auto-Owners filed the present motion on
September 29, 2014. [DE 72]. In its motion, Auto-Owners states that although the Shirks cashed
their settlement check, they have failed to execute a release agreement as called for by the
settlement. Auto-Owners thus asks the Court to enforce the agreement by requiring the Shirks to
execute the release.
The Court must deny Auto-Owners’ motion, as the parties’ stipulation to dismiss this
action with prejudice deprived the Court of jurisdiction to grant such relief in this matter. The
Seventh Circuit addressed this scenario in Pittman v. Dolton Police Dep’t, holding:
No one disputes that, prior to the dismissal, the district court had jurisdiction to
decide whether a valid settlement agreement existed. It was only when the district
court dismissed the case with prejudice that it lost jurisdiction to do anything
further; if it truly wanted to retain jurisdiction, the district court should have

dismissed the case without prejudice. As it is, the dismissal with prejudice simply
means that future disputes over performance of the agreement will not
automatically be handled by the district court.
191 F. App’x 465, 466 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487,
489 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Having dismissed the entire litigation, the court had no jurisdiction to do
anything further, and so if [Defendant] wanted to enforce the settlement agreement and
[Plaintiff] balked, [Defendant] would have to sue [Plaintiff] under the law of contracts. A
settlement agreement, unless it is embodied in a consent decree or some other judicial order or
unless jurisdiction to enforce the agreement is retained (meaning that the suit has not been
dismissed with prejudice), is enforced just like any other contract.”). Since the parties stipulated
to the dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a
motion to enforce settlement. If Auto-Owners wishes to enforce its settlement agreement, it may
initiate a new action in the appropriate forum, but its motion to enforce settlement [DE 72] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 21, 2014

/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

2